THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4684 of 2013 Date:06.11.2014 Between:
P. Chinna Reddy . Petitioner.
AND B. Verra Reddy (died) as per L.Rs B. Kalavathamma and others.
. Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4684 of 2013 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against the orders dated 04-10-2013 in I.A.No.198/2013 in I.A.No.21/2012 in Unregistered A.S (CFR) No.28/2012 on the file of IX Additional District Judge, Wanaparthy.
2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
3. The petitioners herein filed the above referred I.A under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of nine months in filing petition to set aside the abatement and to bring legal representatives of deceased-first respondent late B. Veera Reddy on record. According to affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone delay of nine months, the petitioner is residing 5 kms away from his village and he is not aware of the death of first respondent and he came to know about the death very lately and immediately, after knowing about the death, he filed the petition and therefore, the delay occurred. Other side opposed the application and contended that in pursuance of the decree of the lower Court, an E.P was filed and numbered as E.P.No.57/2009 and during the pendency of that E.P., the said Veera Reddy, who is Decree Holder died and to bring the L.Rs of the late Veera Reddy, E.A.No.55/2012 was filed after giving notice to the counsel and the present revision petitioner and thereby, the petitioner has knowledge of death of Veera Reddy and intentionally not filed the L.R Petition. Considering the affidavit of the petitioner and the counter of the respondents, the learned appellate Judge observed that the petitioner kept quite without bringing L.Rs on record for the reasons best known to him and therefore, the delay of nine months cannot be condoned in a casual manner. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
4. Heard both sides.
5. Advocate for petitioner submitted that subsequent to filing of this revision, the appeal was numbered, after condoning delay in filing the appeal and though Veera Reddy died on 30-03-2012, petitioner has no knowledge till March, 2013 and immediately after knowing about the death, he filed the petition, but the Court below has not considered the reason assigned by the petitioner and there is no intention on the part of the petitioner in not brining the L.Rs, but only due to reasons stated in the affidavit.
He submitted that rights in valuable property are involved and the delay may be condoned at lest on heavy costs.
6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the orders dated 04-10-2013 in I.A.No.198/2013 in I.A.No.21/2012 in Unregistered A.S (CFR) No.28/2012 on the file of IX Additional District Judge, Wanaparthy is liable to be set aside or not?
7. Point:- I have perused the impugned order, dated 04-11-2013. Admittedly, late Veera Reddy filed E.P.No.57/2009 for execution of the decree and on his death, E.A.No.55/2012 was fled for brining L.Rs of late Veera Reddy on record in the said E.P. As seen from the material papers, notice of that petition was given to the counsel for the petitioner in the lower Court and on reporting no objection and no counter to the said application, E.A.No.55/2012 was allowed. As seen from the record, this E.A.No.55/2012 was allowed on 05-11- 2012 from which it is clear that the petitioner has knowledge about the death of late Veera Reddy at least by 05-11-2012. According to Advocate for petitioner immediately after knowing about the death, I.A.No.198/2013 was filed. But as seen from the record, this I.A.No.198/2013 was filed on 01-04-2013. The affidavit filed by the petitioner to condone delay of nine months in filing the L.R Petition did not give any reasons for the four months period from 05-11-2012 to 01-04-2013. The only reason assigned in the affidavit is that he has no knowledge about the death of late Veera Reddy. So even after knowing about the death, there is a delay of nearly four months and the petitioner has not offered any explanation leave alone sufficient explanation for this long delay of four months. The learned appellate Judge considering the knowledge of petitioner in E.A.No.55/2012 observed that the petitioner kept quite without bringing the L.Rs on record for the reasons best known to him.
8. On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that the learned appellate Judge has not committed any error and there is no illegality in the impugned order, dated 04-10-2013, and that the revision is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
9. Accordingly, revision is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:06.11.2014 mrb